On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:51:35AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > >> > What's the donness of this one? > >> > cf. <20180717201348.gd26...@sigill.intra.peff.net> > >> > >> This topic has stayed in 'pu' for a long time. I thought it was > >> concluded that this was a good change? Jeff, Jonathan? > > > > I read over the thread again. I don't think I actually have any > > complaints about the patches as-is. There was some discussion from Junio > > and Ævar about the third one. I don't have a strong opinion. My > > experience has been that "gc --auto" is garbage anyway on the server > > side, but I think Ævar's experience is that it's reasonable for small to > > medium sites (which seems plausible to me). > > > > The message-id quoted there is my "this looks good". I mentioned a few > > possible nits, but I think it would be OK with or without them > > addressed. > > That matches my reading of your position. I tend to agree with > Ævar's recommendation to postpone 3/3 and use 1 & 2 for now.
Let me inject some more uncertainty, then. ;) If we are not going to do 3/3, then should 2/3 simply avoid passing "-1" back via return from main? I guess I don't have a strong opinion, but one of the things I noted was that we converted those die() calls introduced in 2/3 back into returns in 3/3. Do we want to leave it in the state where we are calling die() a lot more? -Peff
